The employer provided an employee with a simple metal tool, a drift, with no apparent defect, which had, in fact, been manufactured to excessive hardness, as the result of negligent heat treatment by the otherwise reputable manufacturer. That was a defect not discoverable, other than by testing of a kind which an employer could not reasonably have been expected to undertake, before issuing the tool to an employee.
Held: In those circumstances, the employer was not liable to the injured employee for the consequences of the manufacturer’s negligence.
Viscount Simonds said that the employers were not in breach of a duty to provide safe plant and equipment to their employees where they purchased tools from well-known makers which subsequently were revealed to be defective, but were entitled to assume they were proper for use. He approved what was said by Finnemore J. in an assizes case to the following effect: ”Employers have to act as reasonable people, they have to take reasonable care; but if they buy their tools from well-known makers, such as the second defendants are, they are entitled to assume that the tools will be proper for the purposes for which both sides intended them to be used, and not require daily, weekly or monthly inspection to see if in fact all is well.’ My Lords, a prolonged examination of the authorities could not have led him to a sounder conclusion.’
Judges:
Viscount Simonds
Citations:
[1959] AC 604, [1959] 1 All ER 346, [1959] 2 WLR 331, [1959] 2 Lloyds Rep 587
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Davie v New Merton Board Mills CA 1958
Parker LJ pointed out that the reasoning in Biddle was inconsistent with other decisions to the effect that there is no duty of care in respect of premises over which the master has no control, but it is consistent with alternative ratios that the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Woodland v The Swimming Teachers’ Association and Others QBD 17-Oct-2011
The court was asked as to the vicarious or other liability of a school where a pupil suffered injury at a swimming lesson with a non-employee during school time, and in particular whether it had a non-delegable duty to ensure the welfare of children . .
Cited – Devine v Colvilles Ltd HL 11-Mar-1969
The House considered the position of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitir. The plaintiff had been injured falling or jumping from a raised platform.
Held: The claim succeeded. ‘ I hold it proved that there was a general panic. Now the defenders . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health and Safety, Negligence
Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.445620
